Wednesday, August 22, 2012

6 comments
Gregg Easterbrook Will No Longer Be Outwardly Creepy Towards NFL Cheerleaders, Insists on Keeping His Inner Creepiness Though

There is one more spot in the BotB Fantasy Football league for anyone who wants to join. The league ID is 250429 and the password is "eckstein." (but it will be "Woodhead" next year as requested) I put a message up on the board there about some possible rule changes in the league. If you have an opinion, feel free to chime in. I have also created a College Football Yahoo Pick 'Em league if anyone cares to join that league. The league ID is 5656 and the password is "asu." Though large numbers aren't as necessary in that league, we only have two people and that's depressing.

Gregg Easterbrook officially came back from his TMQ hiatus last week. He revealed his fetish for men without shirts on in sports magazines, in an apparent attempt to tell us he doesn't mind creeping us out when it comes to him discussing scantily-clad women AND men. This week Gregg makes a further movement towards creeping us out by believing he was one of the first people to show pictures of cheerleaders on sports websites, he reveals his favorite Batman movie, and previews the headaches he will cause us by writing TMQ every week.

"The Dark Knight Rises" has accumulated such a spectacular box office take that it could finance the operation of the entire federal government for one second. That's serious money!

As well as a reminder of just how much money it takes to run the government. "The Dark Knight Rises" is also much more entertaining than the federal government is...at least most of the time.

At the end of last season, Tuesday Morning Quarterback promised to reveal his favorite Bat-flick.

And everyone agreed they didn't care if Gregg kept his promise or not.

It's "Mask of the Phantasm," the sole theatrical-release cartoon in the series.

I knew Gregg's favorite Batman movie would be an animated movie. He finds the live-action Batman movies unrealistic and prefers the realistic cartoon version instead. Here's what I said last week when Gregg said he would reveal his favorite Batman movie:

We don't care what Gregg's favorite Batman movie is, but $100 says it is an animated Batman movie.

Gregg becomes predictable after you read TMQ every week.

In the flick, Bruce Wayne and Batman are voiced by Kevin Conroy, whose deep tones are perfect for the character and a refreshing change from the obviously fake synthesized Batman voice in the movie "The Dark Knight."

Because in the latest Batman trilogy Bruce Wayne was a billionaire who could finance extremely expensive cars and planes and rebuild a massive mansion that was burnt down in a fire, but figuring out that technology to throw his voice off so people wouldn't know he was Batman is something that Bruce Wayne wasn't able to do. Yeah, the voice is obviously synthesized in the movie. That's an intended effect so people don't recognize his voice as that of Bruce Wayne's.

Delaney's character is first a love interest, then foe, then a vital ally for Batman: the formula for the Anne Hathaway character in "Dark Knight Rises."

It was the formula, other than the fact Anne Hathaway was never really a love interest for Batman or Bruce Wayne in "The Dark Knight Rises."

Of course "Mask of the Phantasm" is a silly cartoon. The Phantasm can teleport -- it's never explained how -- and the Joker has taken over and booby-trapped an entire amusement park without anyone noticing. But from this columnist's perspective, Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy movies were silly cartoons too, just with pretentiousness and bloodless slaughter added. If you never caught "Mask of the Phantasm," buy the DVD.

I'm sure Gregg Easterbrook went to go see "Finding Nemo" and came away incredibly confused as to how a fish could not only talk, but could speak English. What are the odds Nemo can speak English and all of the other fish, birds, and sharks speak English as well? Sure, it is a cartoon, but these things need to be explained to Gregg.

In Tuesday Morning Quarterback news, all good things must end. Two perennial items are being retired, or at least put into storage to be curated by future historians of sports columns: Christmas Creep and Cheerleader of the Week.

(balloons are released from the ceiling, champagne corks are popped and a parade begins)

I guess Gregg will be focusing on creeping us out by talking about shirtless athletes in sports magazines from now on. He'll probably start a "Cheer-dude of the Week" item that features men without shirts on who could be cheerleaders. I don't even know what Gregg will do, but I would put nothing past him.

The amusement value of noting Christmas creep has worn off.

Five years ago this statement would have also been true.

A decade ago, when TMQ began the Cheerleader of the Week item, many people didn't realize that NFL team websites were posting photos of scantily clad gorgeous women, and selling bikini calendars. Now everyone knows that.

Because in 2002 we were all such Internet virgins that we needed Gregg Easterbrook to point out where all of the good cheerleader pictures were being posted. It was just a public service Gregg was performing and not at all indicative of what a creepy old man he was being by posting these pictures. Gregg believes himself to be the forebearer of the "show a picture of an attractive cheerleader" movement and he provided the answer every week in TMQ for the half-dozen people who were desperately searching around the Internet for pictures of NFL cheerleaders.

Thankfully, Gregg was here to guide his TMQ readers around the Internet. Without him we all would have been lost as to where to find pictures of women wearing very little clothing.

TMQ's Cheerleader of the Week always included biographical sketches, to demonstrate there are NFL cheerleaders who both radiate sex appeal and hold impressive college degrees, work in important jobs or have other credentials that defy cheer-babe stereotypes.

Which is why Gregg would refer to them as "cheer-babes," because he was just trying to help his audience break out of the stereotypes we believe about cheerleaders.

But now that many sports websites run NFL cheerleader photos -- usually just cheesecake pics, with the woman not even identified -- TMQ's take is no longer distinctive.

Now that other sports sites have caught on to the idea of showing scantily-clad women Gregg just doesn't feel as original as he once did. He was the first to do this after all. In related news, Gregg Easterbrook hasn't surfed the Internet very much over the last ten years.

Since NFL cheerleaders are part of the entertainment -- pretty dancing girls have a long history in entertainment, at least as far back as vaudeville -- the cheerleaders will continue to be discussed and shown, as circumstances merit. Just no more regular items.

All one people who liked this regular item are very disappointed.Now, the Tuesday Morning Quarterback AFC Preview.

Again, this is really more of a review since Gregg doesn't really tell us anything that may or will happen with each AFC team during the 2012 season.

In the 2011 season opener versus Pittsburgh, gaining a 27-7 lead to start the third quarter, the Ravens went for the 2-point conversion and iced the contest.

Because when up 20 points in a football game, it's that 2-point conversion, as opposed to an extra point attempt, which ices the contest. That one additional point makes a huge difference in the mind of Gregg Easterbrook.

The Bills may have paid too much for Mario Williams, who is good-not-great with 53 sacks in six seasons, and has not been a star since 2008. But Buffalo may benefit from overpaying for Williams, because his signing added a sense of excitement to the season.

Other signs remain questionable. Buffalo's defense allowed the most points in the AFC in 2011.

This may be, and I am just guessing here, another reason (outside of adding a sense of excitement of course) why the Bills signed Mario Williams. I think, just maybe, the Bills wanted to improve their defense and saw Mario Williams (and Mark Anderson) as a way of doing this. I like how Gregg seems incapable of seeing that Mario Williams' signing isn't purely for a sense of excitement, but to help out the Buffalo defense from being last in the AFC in points allowed.

Cincinnati Bengals: The big dogs of the AFC North are the Steelers and Ravens, and last year the Bengals went 0-4 against them. That's all you need to know about Cincinnati's 2011 season.

Plus the Bengals made the playoffs with a rookie quarterback. I guess that's an irrelevant story to Gregg that deserves no mention.

The Bengals open at Baltimore on "Monday Night Football." If they are serious about the 2012 season, opening night would be a good time to make that clear.

Incredibly astute suggestion by Gregg. Perhaps the Bengals should try really hard to win the first game of the season. You can't analysis like this anywhere else and that's probably a good thing.For this season, the Trick-or-Treats entered training camp with $16 million in unused salary cap space, one of the league's highest totals. The mandatory-spending salary floor of the new CBA does not start until 2013, allowing the Brown family, owners of the Bengals, one more season of their preferred formula -- losing cheaply.

Yes, "one more season" of their preferred formula of losing cheaply. This is after making the playoffs two of the last three years of course. I'm fairly sure making the playoffs isn't losing cheaply. Making the playoffs is fielding a competitive NFL team and the Bengals seem to be a team on the rise. Of course Gregg doesn't seem to care about reality and only wants to bash the Bengals because he believes them to be cheap.

This offseason Cleveland spent its banked choices plus used the team's second-rounder in 2013 to get Josh Gordon, who did not play anywhere in 2011. Cleveland bid a second-round choice for Gordon in the supplemental draft. Adam Schefter reported the Browns were the sole team to offer a second-round pick, and that many teams bid nothing, meaning they thought Gordon was not worth a seventh-round selection.

That's not at all what this means. It means many teams didn't have a need for a wide receiver and didn't want to waste their time bidding on a player they didn't have room for on the roster. NFL teams tend to hoard draft picks, so if a team didn't have a need for a wide receiver why offer a 2nd or 3rd round draft choice (which is about the spot where Gordon's value seemed to fall prior to the supplemental draft) for a player they don't need?

What that he is a rookie and had a shitty quarterback throwing him the ball? Yes, that does seem to symbolize the Browns struggles, but it doesn't reflect poorly on Little.

The Browns just didn't play well in 2011, and a highly drafted wide receiver dropping passes that would have sustained drives is an indicator of their year's poor play.

It's almost like Little was a rookie wide receiver, which doesn't impress Greg at all. Nevermind Little finished the season with 61 receptions and 709 yards. If that was an undrafted free agent who did that for the Browns then Gregg would never let us hear the end of this. Because Little was taken in the second round, Gregg nitpicks him and brings up every thing he did wrong during the 2011 season, but fails to mention Little caught 700 yards worth of passes from shitty quarterbacks. "Truth in writing" isn't Gregg's motto at all. "Shading the truth so you can't understand what the truth may be" is Gregg's motto.

The United States military is the most proficient in the world. But when very expensive high-tech equipment fails to function properly in low-stress peacetime conditions, why is it that the contractors who built the stuff never have to pay a refund?

Probably the same reason when Gregg Easterbrook writes a TMQ and nobody likes it, ESPN still has to pay him.

When the stats dust settled on the 2011 season, to TMQ one of the biggest questions was: Why did Denver, with the league's best rushing attack -- No. 1 in yards per game, the only NFL offense of 2011 with more net yards rushing than passing -- constantly punt on fourth-and-short?

Because John Fox is an incredibly conservative coach who thinks of a punt as an aggressive play call? Oh I'm sorry, was I not supposed to answer this question with the actual answer and instead start spouting off mantras about "fortune favoring the bold" or how if a team doesn't go for it on fourth down it tells those players the coach doesn't care about winning the game? Anyone who follows the NFL on a regular basis (as someone who writes a weekly column about the NFL presumably would) knows John Fox is an incredibly conservative coach, so this statistic should not surprise Gregg, yet it does. This reflects poorly on Gregg Easterbrook, but he's too ignorant to even understand why.

Denver had an awesome running game, yet kept booming the ball back to the other side on fourth-and-short. Had Fox shown even a little guts on fourth-and-short, Denver's offense might have been more effective.

Or they could have failed to convert the first down and put more pressure on a defense that was already expected to carry too much of the load. There's always that as well.

The Texans jumped on the season early, at one point being 10-3, then going 1-4 down the home stretch. Three of those four loses were close games, and of course Matt Schaub was injured. There were times in 2011 when the Texans looked like Super Bowl contenders, and times when they looked like a team that lost to Indianapolis, which finished 2-14.

It's weird how the times the Texans looked like Super Bowl contenders mostly coincided with the times Matt Schaub was the team's starting quarterback and the times they looked lost they had a rookie starting at quarterback. It's almost like there is a correlation and Gregg doesn't need to even wonder why there was a difference since it is fairly obvious.

Not only do the Jaguars expect to punt a great deal, the team could have had Tebow, if they'd used that third choice to outbid the fourth selection the Jets sent to Denver. Jacksonville management would rather have a punter than Florida's most exciting football player of the decade. Jacksonville fans, get the message?

The message being that Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot and if the Jaguars had traded for Ex-QB Punt Protector Jets then this would also be essentially announcing they have started to give up on Blaine Gabbert? Think about the pressure Mark Sanchez is under with Ex-QB Punt Protector Jets behind him on the depth chart and Sanchez has been to two AFC Championship Games. Blaine Gabbert was among the worst QB in the NFL last year. Trading for Ex-QB Punt Protector Jets would be giving up on Gabbert prematurely because the temptation to put Ex-QB Punt Protector Jets in the game would be so great. So if the message is that trading for Ex-QB Punt Protector Jets wasn't such a hot idea, then the Jags got the message.

Hoping to discourage celebration penalties, coach Mike Mularkey announced he and the team would donate $500 to charity each time a Jacksonville player who scores a touchdown simply hands the ball to an official...Considering that nearly everyone involved with the Jaguars as players, coaches and in ownership is a millionaire, an offer of a miniscule donation to the underprivileged seems more like self-promotion than altruism. Jacksonville wants good publicity in return for doing just shy of nothing. Jags fans, get the message?

The Jaguars don't have to donate a penny to charity, yet they choose to. I don't read about Gregg Easterbrook bitching the other NFL teams aren't doing anything to discourage celebration penalties while donating money to charity. It's the team that is donating money, no matter how much money, that Gregg bitches about. In Gregg's eyes the Jags would be a better franchise by not donating any money to a charity.

Of course Gregg leaves out the part where he seemed to believe people were going to confuse the movie character Bane with Bain Capital and this could tip the results of the upcoming election. That was an absolutely ridiculous point of view. It's in Gregg's nature to bring up times when he is correct and hope his audience forgets when he says some historically stupid shit.

The Chiefs' first three draft selections were linemen. As TMQ notes, spending high choices on meat-and-potatoes is central to the continuing success of the Packers and Steelers.

Miami has invested three recent first- or second-round choices in offensive linemen, plus significant free agent money in the offensive line, yet gave up 52 sacks in 2011, close the league-worst.

But, but, but...both teams spent high draft choices on meat-and-potatoes, yet had different results. How did this happen? It's almost like spending high draft choices on linemen doesn't guarantee success, but smartly spending high draft choices on linemen does help guarantee success. Gregg has these rules he creates about draft picks and sometimes forgets the biggest rule in the NFL is that a team needs to draft well.

Not to mention, the Steelers offensive line hasn't looked great in the preseason so far and hasn't been very good for a few seasons now. So I would argue the Steelers' offensive line hasn't really been a key to their success of late.

Despite hours of exposition in episodes one and three of the trilogy, viewers never found out why the League of Shadows was obsessed with destroying Gotham City. To "restore balance"? There was no hint of why a small army of highly skilled, super-competent and, in a few cases, super-wealthy people believed that killing everyone in America's largest city would "restore balance."

Because throughout history we have found a crazy, irrational, homicidal group of people will always act rationally and with a clear purpose. Plus, it's a freaking movie and isn't supposed to be 100% realistic.

Demolition of Three Rivers Stadium required 4,500 pounds of explosives. How could a similar amount have been hidden beneath Heinz Field, as depicted in the movie, without anyone noticing?

I did a lot of thinking about this and most likely Bane and his group were able to do this because they were able to move freely underground. Not to mention it was a freaking movie and it isn't supposed to be 100% realistic. I wish Gregg had choked on popcorn while yelling at the screen and trying to point out to the entire theater how unrealistic this movie was.

Next, Gregg spoils the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it. At least he should put a spoiler alert in there somewhere. I will do it for him.Spoiler alert if you haven't seen the movie. Stop reading now.

Then there's Miranda Tate plot hole. Bruce Wayne's love interest and seeming benevolent philanthropist trying to save Gotham, Tate is revealed in the last reel to be the sinister Talia al Ghul, leader of the League of Shadows. The big shock is that she has always hated Bruce and always been Bane's boss! But then why does Bane treat her as a captive until the final minutes of the movie?

Because it was part of the fucking plan for Tate to take over the Wayne Enterprises board and drain Bruce Wayne of all his money. Did Gregg not watch the movie? This was pretty much the entire point of everything Miranda Tate did and I thought it was made quite clear. Bane treats Tate as a captive because I'm pretty sure Bruce Wayne/Batman would have figured something was up if Bane greeted Miranda Tate with a hug and their secret handshake. This is just basic knowledge if you have seen the movie. If Gregg paid attention at all to the movie he would have figured this out.

Yet rather than revel in her moment of control of the city she has plotted all her life to seize, Talia spends these months making it seem she is Bane's prisoner. In order to fool who?

In order to fool Batman/Bruce Wayne. I don't know, it made sense to me. She hates him and wanted to kill him and make him suffer. She waited to kill him until the point he knew his precious city was going to be blown to bits in an effort to hurt him emotionally while hurting him phyiscally.

Spoiler alert over now.

The sewers of Gotham City appear to be the most expensive public-works project in American history. And no one except Bane knows about them!

No, other people know about them. They just assume no one is going to be living in them.

Chris Webb of Takoma Park, Md., reports he walked past an outlet of this clothing chain on June 13 and the sign at the door proclaimed, "Fall Transition 2012." He writes, "Summer solstice was still a week away, many kids had just gotten out of school, and already marketers were pushing autumn." At least it wasn't a Christmas display!

Most people purchase their summer clothes BEFORE summer begins in order to (wait for it) wear these clothes during the summer. I know, it sounds crazy to purchase articles of clothing for a specific season to actually wear them during the season. Therefore, purchasing Fall clothing before Fall starts makes some sense. Plus, stores are trying to give shoppers a sense of urgency to buy now. Shoppers know by mid-June if they want summer clothes, they better purchase them now.

Gregg consistently fails to understand the basic way retailers have successfully run their stores and how retailers make a profit.

If Alterraun Verner was named after the planet Alderaan then his parents certainly failed to spell the planet's name correctly. I couldn't find any evidence Verner was named after a planet in any Star Wars movie.

Next Week: TMQ's NFC preview.

It is a review, not a preview. What part of this AFC Preview was actually a preview of what may happen this season?

6
comments:

Anonymous
said...

Two things that really bugged me about Gregg's article:

San Diego Chargers: Norv Turner is 111-117, the NFL's only active head coach who has coached at least 10 seasons and has a losing career record. What does this man have on Bolts' team ownership that he is still employed?

If Gregg took five seconds to look up Turner's records by season (or the breakdown by team), he would find the following:

San Diego: 49 - 31Oakland: 9 - 23Washington: 49 - 59

I think that Turner has been pretty unspectacular as the Chargers' coach, but let's not act like he's been a sub-500 coach there. I don't know if Gregg is stupid or purposely misleading, but either way, his record with the 'Skins and the Raiders should have absolutely zero bearing on Chargers management's decisions regarding his performance in San Diego.

Tennessee Titans: In 2011, the Flaming Thumbtacks were 3-5 versus teams that made the playoffs. That's not a plus record but is a lot of games versus playoff teams: AFC champ New England had only three regular-season games versus playoff teams, versus eight for the Titans. This year, Tennessee faces the NFC North. That's bad news for Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay and Minnesota, as the Titans are on a 19-4 streak versus the NFC.

I can't pin this entirely on Gregg, but I think that it deserves mention as I see it a lot and consider it lazy analysis.

Lets imagine a scenario where two teams finish 10-6 and 9-7 in the same division. Team A (10-6) finished 1st last year, so they face a 1st place team schedule, while Team B (9-7) finished 4th last year, so they place a 4th place schedule. Team A wins the division and Team B misses the WC. Both of Team A's unique opponents win their division again and one of Team B's unique opponents ends up as the wild card. Their common opponents consist of 2 playoff teams (AFC and NFC division winners they are scheduled to play). At the end of the year Team A has faced 4 playoff teams, while Team B has faced 5. Was team B's schedule actually much harder than A's? No, because two of those playoff teams were Team A. If you remove that factor, then Team A played 4 unique playoff teams, while Team B played 3.

So, in Gregg's discussion, the Titans didn't win their division, so they automatically get two extra games against playoff teams on their schedule, while the Pats don't have that because they won their division. Last year's Browns had to play 8 playoff teams, but that's because the Steelers, Bengals, and Ravens all made the playoffs. It's not the most egregious issue in Gregg's analysis by any stretch (not even close), but sometimes it can be quite misleading. If you won more games and made the playoffs, then your team's schedule could likely include less playoff teams. Assuming the Texans missed the WC, if the titans had won their division they would have had 6 games against playoff teams. Conversely, had the Pats lost their division (and not made the WC), then they would have had 5 games against playoff teams.

Anon, two things bothered you? I think my list was at 15 things that bothered me.

That is a good point about Norv Turner. I had thought a/b making the point that Norv had led his team to the best offense & defense in the NFL two years ago, but they still didn't make the playoffs. Gregg needs to focus less on results and make sure the process is working, which in San Diego it seems to be working fairly well.

I think your point about his record with the Chargers is a better one though. It shows Norv has coached well there and it is stops at his other two teams that were the issue. I still believe Norv is a much better OC than head coach, but he isn't a terrible head coach I don't believe.

I had never thought of it that way to be honest about NE/Tenn playing playoff teams. It does matter in the final analysis whether that team made the playoffs or not, especially if two teams are in the same division.

Gregg does love to mislead his audience, though in this case I think you have done more analysis and given more thought to this than Gregg did. I know you thought it through better than I did.

I'm not sure if I have ever used the whole "how many playoff teams did Team X play last year" as proof of anything, but it seems like a somewhat dangerous argument depending on which two teams you are comparing.

"The Chiefs' first three draft selections were linemen. As TMQ notes, spending high choices on meat-and-potatoes is central to the continuing success of the Packers and Steelers."

I'm not disagreeing with the premise that building a solid foundation in the trenches is a good model for success, but holy shit he couldn't have picked two worse examples. Both Pittsburgh and Green Bay have had mediocre offensive line play despite their success. You could make the argument that Big Ben takes all those hits because he holds onto the ball, but the Steelers OL has been less than stellar. Rogers takes a ton of hits and he has one of the quickest releases in the game.

The key to success in Green Bay is they have Aaron Rogers at QB and a ton of great playmakers catching passes from him. The key to Pittsburgh's success has been Big Ben and a very stout (but aging) defense. KC has a good defense, but they have Matt Cassel at QB. Ergo, they're fucked.

Jack, what Gregg forgets is the Green Bay offensive line was a huge question mark going into the 2011 season. Remember how Arizona got through the line in the playoff win they had? Rodgers is exceptionally good at getting rid of the ball quickly, which helps the offensive line out.

These were two very bad examples. I thought the Steelers one was the worst. Roethlisberger holds on to the ball for a while, but the Steelers o-line has been a weakness for a while now. The defensive line has been pretty good, but offensive line is something Steelers fans (including yourself) are probably worried about for this upcoming year.

I really believe Gregg doesn't watch the games. He just assumes the Steelers/Packers win games and draft guys on the offensive/defensive line so they have to be good players b/c the Packers/Steelers are winning games.

Williams, who is good-not-great with 53 sacks in six seasons, and has not been a star since 2008.

Except he was hurt for most of last year...So his stat total is a little lower than if he were healthy; remember, Williams was averaging a sack a game before his injury.

As for this "star" bullshit - his 2009 year was only marginally worse than his 2008 season. Sure he had less sacks (3 less) and tackles (10 less), but had as many stuffs and had more pass defended (3 more). 2010 was also a decent enough year with 8.5 sacks in 13 games.

Then last year he was right back on pace with 2009.

The Williams signing makes sense given that the Bills play in a division with Sanchez/QB#15, whoever the Dolphins toss out and Brady.

That's two QBs that suck (Dolphins QB, Sanchez), a RB and a guy who struggles when pressured.

Seems like having a guy with pass rushing ability is a good thing.

losing cheaply

They had a playoff team that was actually pretty young offensively, letting them develop is a smart move.

Maybe the Bengals didn't see anyone on the market worth giving money to? Why spend money on a player who isn't going to help the team? Save that shit and use it to keep the guys you have.

I also love the "everything is wrong" mantra Gregg has. Bills "overpay" for Williams to become a playoff team - he bitches. Bengals save their money after making the playoffs - he bitches.

I honestly don't know who the Bengals would have gone after. They weren't going QB so the "Flynn" sweepstakes was out of the question, they have young WRs so they weren't giving 7M to Manningham, nor were they giving 4M to Jacobs... the only person who makes sense is Williams who is "overpaid" so you can't fault them for passing.

very expensive high-tech equipment fails to function properly in low-stress peacetime conditions, why is it that the contractors who built the stuff never have to pay a refund?

Because they elect to have the company fix it instead?

And Gregg shows again why he's a fucking journalism major - technology doesn't give two shits about peacetime or war conditions. "Oh we're in war time now? I'll make sure the electrons flow extra freely now."

It's like complaining that your computer downloads porn slower than it downloads email.

Think about this - you buy a new fridge and it breaks; company says they'll come fix it for free and toss on additional protections to the warranty. You probably don't want to go through the hassel of moving the fridge, so you just let them fix it.

Now instead of a fridge, you have a radar dish on an aircraft carrier. Are you really going to go "ya, take the next week taking it of the boat, it's not important to us" or do you just go "ya, come out and fix this shit?"

I did a lot of thinking about this and most likely Bane and his group were able to do this because they were able to move freely underground.

Ding ding ding. A lot easier to secretly place demolitions when you have an underground network of tunnels that NO ONE ELSE KNOWS ABOUT. It's not like they were planting C4 on the structural supports of the stadium with people looking on. They put explosives underground and disrupted the ground enough that the stadium collapsed.

In order to fool who?

Everyone. She kinda needed to become the head of the Wayne corporation to get access to the reactor... which means she had to seem sympathetic to Bruce Wayne...

Seriously, if you watch the movie and your question is "why'd she fake like she was Bane's prisoner" then um... stop. After watching the movie, my question is: what kind of a dumb bitch finds someone willing to nuke a town on her behalf and fucking sticks around in the blast radius for it to go off?

Rich, the question with Williams is whether he can stay healthy or not. The question isn't his talent. As usual, Gregg throws out Williams numbers and doesn't give much perspective. Williams is a quality pass rusher when he is healthy.

Gregg said the same thing about the Buccaneers last year. He accused them of losing cheaply or something like that. Like you said, if a team spends money on a FA then Gregg will criticize them for signing highly-paid glory boys. It's a never-ending cycle of criticism by Gregg.

I have a feeling Gregg wasn't really watch TDKR and was too busy taking notes on everything wrong with the movie. Of all the parts of the film I was concerned about, the explosives made sense to me. There were underground tunnels and he blew up the stadium below the field. Seems pretty simple to me, but of course if you aren't paying attention or don't want it to make sense then I guess this would cause you to be confused.

I don't know why she stuck around. That's a different criticism, but the reason she seemed loyal to Batman and Bruce Wayne until the very end does seem to make sense. After all, it got her to the reactor.

Why We're Here

Our pure joy in life is commenting on, criticizing and making fun of sports personalities, events and issues, mostly using run-on sentences and marginally correct grammar that encourages comments which agree or disagree in a separate opinion. If you have comments, concerns or would like to direct our attention towards an article, you contact us via email: